Rip Tenon Saws.......

[Kees Heiden]

Yes there is no doubt that tapering was real in early British saws. When the Americans started to make saws, the fashion was allready over.

[Ron Bontz]

I am sure the Nielsen saw will work just fine.

[Stanley Covington]

+++1 to what Pete wrote about steel. Modern steel is far far superior to what was generally available back when Henry Disston was still punching teeth. There are rare exceptions, no doubt, but I think we are talking about mass-produced products.

It was very interesting to read Pete's explanation of the slotted sawback. I have always thought the modern milled-slot sawback he introduced on the Liberty saws could only be superior in every way possible to the folded sawback.

I think it would be difficult even nowadays to get that very narrow slot cut precisely. How does one make it? A rotary slotting saw in a mill?

Henry had no way to accomplish it back in his day short of using watchmaking techniques and craftsmen at horrendous cost, but if he could have used a slotted sawback at a decent price, I wager he would have.

[Ron Bontz]

+++1 to what Pete wrote about steel. Modern steel is far far superior to what was generally available back when Henry Disston was still punching teeth. There are rare exceptions, no doubt, but I think we are talking about mass-produced products.

It was very interesting to read Pete's explanation of the slotted sawback. I have always thought the modern milled-slot sawback he introduced on the Liberty saws could only be superior in every way possible to the folded sawback.

I think it would be difficult even nowadays to get that very narrow slot cut precisely. How does one make it? A rotary slotting saw in a mill?

Henry had no way to accomplish it back in his day short of using watchmaking techniques and craftsmen at horrendous cost, but if he could have used a slotted sawback at a decent price, I wager he would have.

Maybe, maybe not. We'll never know. Brass tends to be more expensive than carbon steel. It would have been a bad business decision for Henry to make solid 0.125" thick folded brass saw backs or slotted when he could make carbon steel backs and hot blue them in his own factories. After all, he did make his own steel. It was up to the marketing folks to convince you the steel back was better than the brass backs found on many British saws, etc. These days we can cut cost, to some extent, by plating carbon steel as well, as opposed to the solid stuff. Like any thing else, once a process is set up, it can certainly cut cost. Clarinet keys, for example were once made with more nickel, then went to chrome plating. Cheaper to make, but they sure were shiny and more easily kept that way as long as the plating held up. So enough said. If a vintage saw works for you, kudos. If a modern saw works for you, kudos too. It's a predominately subjective choice. It's the end results that count. And yes it is a slitting/ slotting saw that cuts the precise slot in a slotted back. On either a horizontal mill or vertical mill.

[Warren Mickley]

Three of my saws are Disston saws over 100 years old. They are certainly adequate for professional cabinetmaking. One can read on these pages that the steel is far superior today, but I have seen guys take the toe of 100 year old saw and bend it around and through the handle without any fear of consequences. Next time I go to a Lie Nielsen event I'll ask if they can do that. Maybe they can.

I am currently using chisels that were made when Henry Disston was a boy in England. I have often read of the inconsistency and the inferiority of the steel in these chisels. Experience suggests otherwise.

In the 18th century backs of smaller saws tended to be brass, larger saws steel.

[Kees Heiden]

When I read a typical composition chart of 1095:

Chemistry Data : [top]

Carbon		0.9 - 1.03
Iron		Balance
Manganese		0.3 - 0.5
Phosphorus		0.04 max
Sulphur		0.05 max

Then I see quite some variation! Nice on the low sulphur count. The English used coal to heat up their steel, so had to cope with higher values, unless they were so smart to use Swedish steel.

Here are some values from Disston saws:

model	carbon	silicon	manganese	chromium	nickel
backsaw	1.343 %	0.1862 %	0.3877 %	0.1656 %	0.0436 %
No. 7	0.860	0.2487	0.3223	insig.	0.0127
D-8	0.774	0.2104	0.1881	insig.	0.0244
No.12	0.706	0.2103	0.2424	insig.	0.0191
D-23	0.742	0.1661	0.3271	0.1500	0.636

The backsaw has a very high Carbon content, while the handsaws are more like a 1070 steel, without the Manganese. Sulphur probably so low that it didn't register in the analyser. The No7, the D8 and the No12 show very similar values, while the D23 suddenly has a lot of nickle. Scrapmetal?

Anyway, the majority of late 19th/early 20th century saws are just pretty damned good. In handsaws I would even say that nobody reached that level yet.

[Pete Taran]

Warren,

I think you are looking at your experience incorrectly. SURVIVING Old tools have gone through a 100+ year old natural selection process. If a saw or chisel was sold that had soft steel, do you think it's owner would polish it daily and carefully maintain it so someone 100 years later would find it and also discover it's shortcomings?

Life is short, and it was even shorter 100 years ago. Those tools got trashed or otherwise saved for "odd jobs" which hastened their end. They just aren't around today. So to imagine that the tools you have today are representative of the total population made back then just isn't accurate. Tools were stamped with "warranted" for a reason. Makers can and did make faulty tools. They knew this which is the reason they were stamped "warranted" which had the effect of a formal guarantee of quality.

[Warren Mickley]

One of my saws was bought by my grandfather in 1906. I first used it in 1956. I can assure you that nobody "would polish it daily" (saws that are used daily do not have to be polished daily). I did not "find it 100 years later". My grandfather was an engineer; I think he only ever owned one saw. Maybe you are the one who is looking at my experience incorrectly. I think you are making up a story to support your ideas.

[Pete Taran]

You're entitled to your opinion Warren and you miss the entire point. My point is, that what we see today is altered by natural selection. I don't think it's far fetched at all to posit that good stuff sticks around and crap ends up in the scrap heap. If that concept is lost on you, I'm sorry.

[steven c newman]

Nicely hijacked thread...fellows...

[Kees Heiden]

Warren,

I think you are looking at your experience incorrectly. SURVIVING Old tools have gone through a 100+ year old natural selection process. If a saw or chisel was sold that had soft steel, do you think it's owner would polish it daily and carefully maintain it so someone 100 years later would find it and also discover it's shortcomings?

Life is short, and it was even shorter 100 years ago. Those tools got trashed or otherwise saved for "odd jobs" which hastened their end. They just aren't around today. So to imagine that the tools you have today are representative of the total population made back then just isn't accurate. Tools were stamped with "warranted" for a reason. Makers can and did make faulty tools. They knew this which is the reason they were stamped "warranted" which had the effect of a formal guarantee of quality.

Nice theory, but of course you know that it is just a theory. You have no idea about numbers, how many were trashed, were they really bad or not. I've heared the reverse theory too, all the duds were set aside and survived, the really good tools were used up!

The very small sample of Disston saws I posted above tells a different story. The backsaw is clearly a dud, too much carbon and according to the text on the disstonian website it was brittle but still not very hard, this is a very old saw. The 4 handsaws are remarkably consistent, also in hardness. The D-23 is a post WW2 model and has a bit more nickel mixed in which could just be scrapmetal or it was added to get a bit better wear resistance. Of course, just a very small sample indeed.

[steven c newman]

Bare in mind.....Disston made those "Dud" No. 4 backsaws for use in mitre boxes as well.....and a I have a pre-WW1 5" x 28" saw for my No. 358 Mitre Box. And the post 1928 version. Both are very good at what they were designed to do. Can't really tell much difference between them ( other than the handles) or the Disston/HK Porter 4"x 24" saw I use in my Stanley #2246 Mitre box. Maybe the "dud" backsaws were made differently, because they were getting a back to them?

BTW, one of the two saws I use for joinery, like box joints and dovetails..is a Disston 14" No. 4,,,,,,,Just had it sharpened....works just fine.

[Kees Heiden]

Of course, just this example was not so great! Others were probably a lot better. It's better explained on the website where I nicked the numbers: http://www.disstonianinstitute.com/steel.html

[steven c newman]

Mine say they were made by Disston & Sons expressly for a Stanley Mitre Box. I also looked up MY saws on the Disstonian Institute site. I really could NOT care less about the steel in the saws, all I ask is that the saws do the work they were designed to do. One of those saws I just listed was made 100 years ago....the other is almost 90 years young....the "baby" of the bunch is from the 1950s.....and..they all work as needed.

Maybe you should read up on the trick Henry Disston himself used to sell his saws. He would walk into a store selling other makers saws, proceed to show how brittle they were, and dare anyone to break any saw of his. And, all he did was to slam the other's saw down onto a countertop, where the saw shattered. Might be more interesting a read than what someone THINKS those saws were made from.

[Pete Taran]

Just a theory, that's true for sure. Add to that though probably handling 50,000 vintage saws in the past 25 years...either looking at them at tool meets, sharpening them up for use or sale.

Disston did make bad steel. I bought a hardness tester to be able to do analytical work on this stuff. The early steel is all over the place. The later stuff is much more uniform. That was my whole point of this witty repartee. Later steel is better because it has statistical process control built into the manufacturing process. Not magic pixie dust that is thrown in from one lot to the other.

Are there excellent examples of early steel? Yes indeed. Was bad steel produced? Yes indeed. Is bad steel produced today? Maybe, but it is not released for sale because we have the ability to measure how it's made and analyze the attributes we are after.